Good review. I appreciate how you focused on 1280x1024 (as opposed to some people who wanted 1920x1200?!) as that is the monitor I'm still rockin. However, I'm curious how the 4670 performs in The Witcher with AA, regardless of how the 9500GT does. I like this game and wonder what kind of performance hit I might expect were I to pick up the card. It would appear that nobody is watching the comments anymore since it broke down into fanboy/retarded complaining, but I'd like to know. Also, please no "answers" from others who haven't actually run the game but want to speculate. I can perform such speculation on my own, and already have. Reply

I thought the review was great. Thanks for being so thorough in your analysis vis-a-vis older cards. That's exactly the comparison people want to make... not which current generation card is 5% better than another... but how much they gain from upgrading an older card to the latest generation.

But there are two points left open:

1./ Performance at 1600x1200 or 1920x1200 which is the resolution that PEOPLE WHO READ THESE BENCHMARKS are interested in. I can guarantee you NOBODY is interested in the 800x600 figures you give. Nobody considering a performance part works at that resolution. But you left a big knowledge gap for the screen resolutions that most people with enthusiast PCs have: 1600x and 1920x1200.

2./ You say there is no win with the 4670 over 3870. For a few $ more you get a few % more performance, therefore 3870 QED. Not so. Many people are interested in silent machines or cool HTPC. The power usage figures between the 3870 vs. 4670 warrant 4670 winning in every case. I'm sure you can OC the 4670 to 3870 performance and still have a cheaper to run machine with less heat and silent.

Actually no one is interested in such resolutions with a budget card. If you get a budget card, you accept that your likely to play at relatively low resolutions. You'd have to be stupid to get a budget card and then try to play at 1920x1200. In case it isn't obvious, I personally hate it when stupid reviewers, perhaps insipired by equally stupid commentators test resolutions that no one is ever going to play with and then complain the card is too slow. I DO NOT care if the card can only manage 10 FPS at 1920x1200. It's completely irrelevant and doesn't help me in deciding which card to buy. Reply

When the HD 4650 is released and reviewed, I'd be interested in a comparison between integrated solutions and these lower-end cards regarding power consumption, performance and price... Are there any plans by AMD to integrate one of these lower-spec cards into a motherboard? Reply

OMG, my first thought was this is a look alike site and I've been duped. I mean no way this review belong to anandtech, this review is good for the "epic failed" site, PLEASE PULL IT NOW and write a new one, from scratch I might add. Reply

I'm having a nice time imagining these in a triple crossfire config with a DDR2, X48 mobo, overclocked, liquid cooled (finally, a somewhat-gaming card that can use cookie-cutter water blocks), and probably a Q9300 thrown in. Something tells me that could actually make a great midrange system. Space for dual HDTV tuners and a PCI-E sound card too? Sign me up! Reply

In HEXUS' review its equal to a HD4850 in Crossfire. Since triple isn't common I would say that you would pick up some additional performance and distance yourself even further from HD4850.

Honestly that is what I am planning. Not triple but dual HD 4670. I ordered a Sapphire 512mb HD4670 from NE and UPS bungled and lied about the delivery. It should be here tomorrow.

But two HD 4670 1GB on a 790GX with a 5000+ BE for now and a Phenom later, plus my two TV tuners (ATI TV Wonder 650 and Cat's Eye 150 PCI) on my Gateway 24" monitor I envision fairly powerful multi-media PC that will play every game on the market.

GRID with AAx4 on Ultra @1920x1200 - 33fps according to Legit Review

ATI's goal was 30fps with current games, I'd say Mission Accomplished

HEXUS saw increase of 80% over one card in many games including GRID, Crysis and COD4.

So I'm with you man, two are better than one when they are affordable as this and take less power to run.

Those resolutions are on TV's and most of the public still separates their PC viewing from TV viewing. Only gadget freaks, geeks and tech nuts are even doing the HTPC thing and have their PC's connected to their DLP, Projector, LCD or Plasma.

So there's some use for that info, but c'mon Tom's hardware has covered the whole resolution issue before and breaks it down between say 1280x768 (720p) and 1920x1200 (1080p) is something like 17% more pressure put on a GPU to render images.

But anyway....

Yes a 9600GT is faster, but by how much and does it really make a difference in gameplay?

I say NO it doesn't not even a little bit. From 30 to 60 that's a fairly big step in performance, but if your talking like in another review 50.3 vs 47.0 in GRID @1280x1024 AAx4 that's NOTHING and only for Gamers to argue about, which I won't stoop that level, its immature for one thing. Its a my dick is bigger than yours nonsense, when it serves the same purpose, its strictly a men's argument and doesn't pass the giggle test with most people.

At the END of the day, guess what?

Even at $95 the 9600GSO is roughly the same performance if not slightly less in every bench I have seen thus far and its $16 more.

Even at $99 the 9600GT is slightly faster in some benches, even in others, some games are optimized for Nvidia GPU's, others ATI, GRID for ATI, Crysis for Nvidia. Nevermind the HD4670 is faster than 2900XT, HD3850 256MB, 2600XT, HD3650, the last two cheaper than the HD4670.

Its target was the 9500GT no matter how the media and Nvidia want to SPIN THIS. It crushes it, totally and completely and its not a argument of a difference of 2-3fps, its more like 10-15, even 20fps in some cases, you can't even play some games with the 9500GT, it won't reach 20fps in many games, even at mild resolutions.

In fact saving $19 over the 9600GT buys -

Splinter Cell, Company of Heroes and a few other games on Direct2Drive

[quote]Its target was the 9500GT no matter how the media and Nvidia want to SPIN THIS. [/quote]

Umm, they never target a specific card, they target a price point. At $80, the 4670 is clearly the winner, partly because there is no competition as the 9500GT has rightly dropped below $70.

[quote] So FOR ME and people shouldn't let other people tell them what they should buy if they don't totally agree. [/quote]

Obviously. Less conspiracy-minded people might see though that they are pointing out that for the cost of a few lunches at whatever your fast-food restaurant of choice is, you can pick up substantially better performance Reply

Anandtech, can you please start running your benchmarks in widescreen resolutions; that's where the industry is. 1280x800,1366x768, 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1080. That would be great.
Also, it seems like this card, run at 1280x800 with AA on would almost always outperform the 3870; and with the low power requirements it would be great as a laptop add on, using the expressbox. I'd love it if you could do a current article on external notebook graphics, even if it was only using the expressbox since I don't think any other exteranl graphics are currently for sale; I could be wrong though.
Anyway, this looks like a great card, and a positive step in incresing the lowest common demoninator for graphics performance; in 5 years they can design games to run on this card on min settings and low resoluiton; while tuning the setting to go all the way up to fully utilize whatever hardware is out then. ATI, thank you for the 4000 series. Reply

I think this is quite an appealing card for the price and power usage. It is much better than the 9500GT or the HD3650 which are the closest competitors in terms of power usage. It will also blow away the HD2600 pro that I bought a few months ago at a similar price point, and has the same power supply recommendations. To me this is progress: better performance per watt and per dollar.

Granted, spending about 50 dollars more could buy a much more powerful card, but it would also use more power, be bigger, and require a better power supply with an external power connector.

I am wondering what the HD4650 and possible 4400 series cards will be like. Considering the low price and power comsumption of the HD4670, I really question the need for any lower line cards. Reply

You should have just ran it against a 9600GT. When you can get one for $95 at newegg (2 of them at that price) this article is pointless. They even have a huge selection of them for $99. Just tell us the GSO sucks, is pointless, and that the GT beats them all for $95. Could have saved a lot of moaning and groaning. :) The GT should have at least been in the article because they have a ton of them below $100 at newegg alone (like 10 or so).

For $15 difference, it seems foolish to buy a $80 4670. Even more dumb to even suggest I'd buy a $100+ GSO model when I can absolutely dominate it for $5-15 less. Buy a 9600GT...geez. Reply

"Small rabbit hole here: the real long-term solution to image quality is not AA, it is increasing DPI (dots per inch). Decreasing the size of a pixel will do a lot more to make an image look smooth than any amount of antialiasing could. What's the analog in the real world? Compare those duplo and lego castles to a sand castle. Many more grains of sand that are much smaller mean a very very smooth appearance with no AA needed. Display technology has severely fallen short over the past few years and we still don't have desktop LCD panels that really compete with top of the line CRTs from 7 or 8 years ago."

There's truth in that, but you also have to consider a few other things. One of the major problems with high DPI displays is that there are MANY programs that don't recognize DPI well, so you get itty bitty text that's practically illegible. I run a 30" LCD, and at 2560x1600 you get a .25mm pixel pitch. In comparison to other normal desktop LCDs, that's the smallest pixel pitch you can currently get (DPI is 101). It's about the same as a 17" 1440x900 laptop display, only instead of sitting 18 inches away on my lap, mine sits about three feet away. Let me tell you, it *does* make a difference.

There are plenty of websites for example that for a specific font size, and by default it's way too tiny for my eyes. Even MS Word has problems, so that I usually run at a 150% magnification. Also, those beloved flash movies - and movies in general - that come at 512x384 or 640x480 are hard to watch.

Very high DPI displays sound like a great idea - and they'll become more practical at some point - but right now I think .27 to .30 mm dot pitch is the sweet spot for most eyes. It's one of the reasons I think 27" LCDs are often a better choice for people than 30" (of course you can run the 30" display at both 2560x1600 and 1920x1200, although you get some blurriness at non-native resolutions). Those with better eyes may not find it a problem, but personally I don't think ultra-high DPI provides a great user experience right now. Reply

4670 looks to be a great low-mid range card. I've been wanting to get a slimline PC, but the current choices in low-profile GPUs are still lacking. Sure there's the 9600GT low-profile, but that requires 400watt PSU and it's already a hot card in full-length form. If there's a 4670 low-profile, I'd buy it in a heartbeat as long as they keep it under $80.

As for the review itself, it was terribly written. AT articles seems to be on a decline in recent times. Horrible graph choices and questionable writings. Also, a entire page dedicated to talking about a competitor's product. How low can we go AT? Oh and when can we have a decent motherboard roundup? You know, the one that was promised since last summer (when 690G came out)? Reply

When a co-worker wanted to purchase a new PC, he consulted me. I told him to "future proof" himself and get a Quad Core. Being a parent of 2 children and the only one working in the household, he can't afford to upgrade every 2-3 years like hardcore gamers, power users, overclockers.

Now its your typical $900-1000 Dell and of course he could have gotten equal performance for much less if he DIY'ed it. Let's be honest people, when you consider there's still an intimidation factor with any electronics let alone PC's which seem to crash on their own (of course that's not always true either) you can understand that most people value pre-builts and being able to call up Dell tech support if something happens.

At least when benchmarking, they should use not only the most powerful system they can find, but use one that a typical end-user would have and that's slow speed dual cores and even late of era single core CPU's like the Pent D and AMD 64's.

I bought my Dell back in 2003, I didn't build a new system until I found I couldn't get more out of my old system, that was about 8 months ago (2008). So five years between systems and if wanted to watch HD content the regular way, my old Dell was just fine the way it was and did play HD@720p without issue.

This new system is middle of the road in terms of power and crushes most PC's between $600-700 available from HP/Compaq or Dell (3.1Ghz 5000+ BE).

My point is, that most people don't have PC's with $200-$1200 GPU's and couldn't fathom spending $500 for a video card, not even $200, $100 is the threshold for most people and that's pushing it, only 20somethings and teens would even think its "reasonable" for gaming performance to spend $100 on a card.

I'll go ahead and do what all these other sites aren't doing, I'll give you a user review of the HD 4670 on a basic system (Dell 530) on a 19" LCD, depends when I get one. Currently only New Egg has it and I won't be able to order until Friday.

If you have a modern CPU, with only a 128-bit bus, I doubt an older dual core or even a single core would bottleneck performance. It really depends on what games you play. FPS are more GPU dependent than CPU. Racing games because of physics and AI tend to use a fair amount of CPU power, which is why GRID recommends 3.0Gz single cores but on Bit Tech they tried it with both a single core and dual core and it clearly ran faster with a dual core CPU.

Seriously, does people really expect a $79 card to perform anywhere near the level of a $180 card, i.e. the 4850? AMD would be stupid to do that. If that happens, who would want to buy the 4850 or 4870? AMD crippled the 4670's performance for a reason, i.e. not to cannabalize the sales of its higher end cards. Reply

This article could be one that girls/women would avoid. Just seeing the term "epic fail" is already a turn off for me. Just seem so childish and in the same terminology I guess, childish for a review. Reply

Once again AT has an ATI review that has an entire page reserved for nVidia product information. Every ATi review we get from AT seems to have an entire page dedicated to nVidia products. Funny how the nVidia reviews NEVER have entire pages dedicated to ATi products. Reply

That's because with every ATI release, nVidia scrambles to put out a new (usually re-hashed) part as an answer to ATI's new product, so the review sites naturally compare the two cards together. ATI doesn't have OCD about putting out a direct answer to every single product their competitor releases like nVidia does, so review articles on nVidia products don't usually have anything new from ATI to talk about.

You can't blame the review sites for this one. They're just reporting on what the companies are doing. Instead, blame nVidia for saturating the market with a ridiculous number of redundant products. Reply

The great thing about accusations like this is that there's nothing Anandtech can say in response. It's just a complete bullshit assertion made by fanboys (or idiots, take your pick).

I look at the 9500 GT and I read, "This is not an exciting launch. The 9500 GT doesn't offer much more performance than the 8600 GT it replaces." I see charts with the 3850 and 3650 included. I read comments about how both ATI and NVIDIA have released pretty weak hardware at the bottom.

I read the 4870X2 article and I see sensible explanations about how Crossfire doesn't always work, the card is expensive, but when everything gels it's a very fast solution. Where's the bias there? Where's the "lies"? I'll tell you what, I've got my Crossfire system and I can say without a doubt that there are plenty of games that don't scale with CF. Especially new releases where ATI hasn't had a chance to update the drivers. Quite a few titles require you to run with CF disabled until the next driver update, or else performance is horrible. (Grid is a perfect example. I think I got about 3 FPS with Crossfire 3870 at launch, but around 30-40 FPS when I disabled CF.)

Or what about the totally NVIDIA biased review of the GTX 280? "As impressive as the GT200 is, the GeForce GTX 280 is simply overpriced for the performance it delivers. It is NVIDIA's fastest single-card, single-GPU solution, but for $150 less than a GTX 280 you get a faster graphics card with NVIDIA's own GeForce 9800 GX2. The obvious downside to the GX2 over the GTX 280 is that it is a multi-GPU card and there are going to be some situations where it doesn't scale well, but overall it is a far better buy than the GTX 280." And it's a good thing they don't mention ATI in NVIDIA reviews, like this statement: "The GeForce GTX 260 is a bit more reasonable. At $400 it is generally equal to if not faster than the Radeon HD 3870 X2, and with no other NVIDIA cards occupying the $400 pricepoint it is without a competitor within its own family. Unfortunately, 8800 GT SLI is much cheaper and many people already have an 8800 GT they could augment."

The fact that ATI is second on a lot of launches is the cause for the comparisons that are done. (GT200 came before the HD 4800 launch, so it was compared to 3870X2; 4670 followed 9500; plenty more examples that I won't bother to list) What about the "totally anti-AMD" article praising the 4850 and 4870: "The Radeon HD 4870 and 4850 are both solid values and cards we would absolutely recommend to readers looking for hardware at the $200 and $300 price points." That makes sense, and the conclusions in this article make sense to me as well.

For the price, you get a decent card, but there's no denying the 4670 will struggle in quite a few games, particularly at higher resolutoisn. I can't imagine running anything less than a 22" 1680x1050 display these days, and the only people running 19" LCDs are already using older hardware. Once you go widescreen, you'll never want to go back... at least not until you encounter one of the titles that refuses to include WS support.

So sure, if you're limping along with older hardware this makes sense. If you don't care too much about gaming performance, it's a great HTPC card, but do most people actually use HTPCs!? I think it's just a really vocal minority that chooses to bitch about HTPC issues, because I'd take my DVR over any of the PC solutions for $10 a month and the ease of use and integration! I can't remember the last time anyone in my family asked me for help trying to connect their PC to a TV - HD or otherwise. The real truth is that the only people that really need discrete GPUs are enthusiasts and gamers. If you're a gamer, get something faster for a bit more money. If you're like Anand and building a $50000 home theater, I suppose it's just too much to consider that extra money for more performance? If I had a nice setup for watching movies, I'm certain I'd want to use it to play games on occasion as well. Reply

The 9600 GSO has been around for at least 3-4 months, just was not exciting enough to warrant mention. Look on the bright side - every GPU AMD has released recently has been important enough to get a full review, while we have rehashed NVIDIA GPUs that are not mentioned until they compete with something from AMD. Reply

Using a quad core CPU isn't stupid, it's good methodology. The whole idea is to try and avoid any external limitations on the card's performance, so that the only change we see IS the card's performance.

Seriously, this is a technical website. If you don't want to see things done by the appropriate technical method, go read cnet. Reply

Is it safe to assume that all the cards that were discussed in this review (not just the 4670 and 4650, but also the cards they were compared to) are equal in their video acceleration capabilities? Maybe this is a given, but I wasn't sure.

It seems like the capabilities of these lower end cards for doing things besides 3D gaming become more important, since they aren't really of much interest to a dedicated gamer. Something like a HTPC seems like a more likely home for one of these cards, or a general purpose home computer that might get pressed into service for some home video editing (though I'm assuming CPU power is what still counts the most for this sort of work). Reply

i really dont understand why you benchmark a 80$ gpu in a system with a 1000$ cpu, may be you can make 3 reference system, one for high, one for medium, and one for low budget, it may reflect the real performance that people buying this card will see... Reply

I don't care if the review is biased or not, just don't have so much time to analyze every single word or sentence and extraxt the bias towards nVidia from it... I found it useful, and the 4670 seems a very, very good card for its money - and considering the already low power consumption of the 3850, the 4670 is an instant HTPC favourite, consuming even less. By the way, I never thought of sub-100$ cards as of something more than just a IGP extension, gaming performance is by no means the decisive factor here. If it can run passively, accelerate H.264 and handle some basic graphic tasks, than it's fine for me. If you can play some games with it - you got a nice bonus. Reply

A few of my famlymembers and myself were looking to upgrading our PCs over the next six months so I've been keeping an eye on new hardware, especially graphic cards.

We are only looking at budget systems and seeing the benchmarks for the 4670, especially Crysis, at that pricepoint and I was about to recommend it to my family based on the review. I re-read the article and noticed your test setup, the Q9770 alone costs almost £1000!

I know the point of the article maybe to compare the various GPUs as fairly as possible but these aren't real world figures because I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone in the real world who will use a budget GPU with an ultra high-end CPU.

Myself, like most sane people, would couple this GPU with an entry level Celeron, Core2 or AMD X2 CPU and these charts don't say how much real world performance I'm going to get on this card.

While I'm not expecting to get Crysis playable on the low end I am interested in the likes of Diablo3, Starcraft2 and Dawn of War2 and am severely disappointed at the lack of RTS games in your benchmarks, especially on the mid to budget reviews as these are generally the games you'll get played on lower systems. Reply

"I know the point of the article maybe to compare the various GPUs as fairly as possible but these aren't real world figures because I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone in the real world who will use a budget GPU with an ultra high-end CPU."

The testing is to compare what the card is capable of. If you pair it with lower end components then you introduce more variability into the mix. Is the game CPU or GPU limited at that resolution? Since no current games really use a quad core CPU then matching the number of cores is less important than matching the architecture and speed of the test CPU.

Plus if you run similar tests on your system with your CPU you can use this data to figure out where you're best off spending upgrade money in the future. If you can't get the same FPS at the same resolution then a CPU upgrade is going to help more than another GPU upgrade.
Reply

I should have worded it slightly different, when we upgrade we buy a new base unit and pass the older unit on to someone else so comparing it in that way wouldn't work as it will be a new CPU and GPU.

The entire base units we were pricing up were half the price of the CPU used in this test and those base units include the AMD 4850 on a DDR2 motherboard.

If you look at some of the Phenom reviews running Crysis (latest CPU reviews with benchmarks), they don't include the Q9770 which is running at 3.2GHz but do have the E8400 3.0GHz intel chip beating a X2 5600+ 2.8GHz AMD chip by almost 20FPS at 1024x768 at medium settings and the Intel chip is £50 more expensive.

The review says this GPU will play Crysis but if you put it with a CPU aimed at the same market segment it won't, therefore the benchmarks paint completely the wrong picture as the 4650 may not be suitable for a budget system and you'd be better off paying the extra and getting a 4850. Reply

If a 4650 is significantly throttled by the CPU in a system, it usually won't make a big difference to go to a faster GPU to try to get around this. At the lower resolutions, they'll both be waiting on the CPU. In other words, neither card is in an environment where it can fully utilize its capabilities. Reply

that doesnt even make sense. you dont go with a faster gpu to overcome cpu limitations. if you play Crysis on medium at 1024 with a really slow cpu adding a fast gpu wont make much differnce. it will allow you to bump up settings and res though. Reply

I wouldn't call an AMD X2 5600+ a "really slow CPU", especially for about £55.

It specifically states in the article;
"Additionally, for the 4670, only two of these numbers are less than playable and one is borderline. In general, the 4670 shows that at 1280x1024, it can handle all the current games you might throw at it. In the tests where AA is enabled, the 4670 shows that it has an added advantage, which matters much more at low resolutions than high ones."

The 9600GSO is a rebranded 8800GS which is a slightly underpowered 8800GT.

In the Crysis benchmark with the Q9770 the 9600GSO gets over 60FPS at 1024 x 768. In the same benchmark for the Phenom X3 review, with a slightly more powerful GPU, the AMD X2 5600+ only gets 45 FPS, thats 75% of the performance. At the 1280x1024 Crysis benchmark with 4xAA the 4670 is only able to get around 30fps, now if we apply the 75% performance of the X2 5600+ the AMD 4670 is only getting just over 20fps which is not exactly playable.

By using the Q9770 in the review Anandtech have given all these cards a performance increase they wouldn't get in the real world. This is okay in most reviews as you are just comparing cards but at the bottom end you are also making sure that they don't go below a certain level of performance, this review shows them being above that line while actual users may experience something completely different. Reply

The main point of using a fast CPU is to eliminate the possible bottleneck from CPU, thus comparing purely the performance of GPU. If you use a CPU that would introduce a bottleneck during benchmark you would get same FPS from multiple GPUs not knowing which one is better, and this defeats the whole purpose of a review. Reply

I'd just like to let you know that I feel the same way you do. IMO there should be a lower end CPU (X2 5600) to show some numbers closer to what you or I might experience, as well as a higher end part (Q9770) to show a less CPU limited environment. Unfortunately AT doesn't cater to those of us who would like some more realistic numbers. Reply

It has nothing to do with "realistic"... it's all about time. If it takes late nights just to get one set of numbers finished, doubling the number of tests means you'll miss the launch dates of pretty much every new piece of hardware - or you'll cut tests to make it. There are only so many hours in a week, and that's often what you have to complete testing of a new GPU.

Besides, if a top-end CPU to avoid bottlenecks isn't good enough and you add one other CPU, then someone else wants yet another point of reference, and it just goes from there. We have CPU articles where the GPU is kept constant so you can see CPU scaling, and we have GPU articles where the CPU is constant so you can see GPU scaling. Most games are GPU limited, particularly at high detail settings, but I'd still go with a faster CPU if you can afford it. Reply

All this review shoes is that a Q9770 can play Crysis with very little concern for the GPU and that the 4670 is better than a 9600GSO but that ignores the issue that neither the 4670 or 9600GSO may play games.

Building on a budget I have to ask myself a simple question, is it worth spending xx amount on a GPU that will give me a performance boost but not still enough to adequately play games or do I spend the same amount on a more powerful CPU and stick with an IGP like the AMD 780G. Neither will play games BUT the more powerful CPU will be more useful in better areas. This doesn't answer that question and I'm still none the wiser as to whether to buy this card or not. Reply

I had a HD3870 for $119, that cheap IMHO no rebate needed to get that price but after tax it grew to $129 and for the amount of performance I got for that price, I was impressed -

GRID Demo 1.1 50+fps@1920x1200 Ultra AAx2

However, I had to remove a TV Tuner card to use it. So I took it back, I like to watch local HD broadcast of NCCA College Football and NFL Football too much to leave that tuner out.

Yes I could go with a 9600GT single slot (No GSO here) for $99-150 on New Egg

Or a Sapphire HD3850 for $94

But the HD4670 is $79 and shouldn't be more than that, even at B&M's and might be slightly less online depending on bulk purchases by companies like TigerDirect and New Egg.

It fits the bill, yes I have to take down my default resolution from 1920x1200 in GRID to say 1280x768 which is 720p and at that resolution it should play at 50-60fps on High, AAx2. GRID looks so good even at medium detail, I don't mind turning it down a notch or two just to make it run faster. If I can run it 60fps at 1920x1200 in Medium, that's plenty for me.

I'm not uninformed or uneducated about PC Products, far from it. I know the HD4850 1GB from Sapphire would be highly ideal in my system but I don't want to spend $200 for a card, okay? Why should I hold myself to the standards of somebody else when I'm not a hardcore gamer/overclocker at heart, just somebody that wants to play a cool game like GRID at a decent frame rate and detail. While it would be great to get more performance, you would have to go up to a HD3870 to really out distance the HD4670 and as I told you with this mATX board it just won't work and allow my two TV tuners to live in harmony.

Thus HD4670 does what I needed to do and its not because I'm a cheap SOB or uninformed. I am informed, making this an ideal choice for me at my pre-set budget limit.

You should updated this with a pair of these Crossfire'ed I understand performance is pretty good for a couple of "budget" cards....

I really don't like the conclusion. You can always say spend same more. You have a video card for 79$, just add 20$ and get something faster. But how much faster? 20$ it's 25% more. Does 9600GT provide 25% more performance? What's powor consumption of 9600GT. Not to mention this card is simply much bigger. We're at 100$ but why not spend around 125-130$... I'm sure most buyers want add extra money just to have something quicker if it doesn't provide "next level" of performance. Also companies like Dell or even Apple with chose smaller cards for their's computers. Reply

we all know the problem comments about biased articles on anand
i haven`t made one yet but the final words on this article are hilarious ...
my opinion is the final words should have started with something like this :

whenever they said something good about this card(rarely)they imediatly put brackets and add something negative ex:

"Unfortunately, that's a more difficult question to answer than it was with the higher end parts." -lol
"The hardware does outperform the competition at the same price point (though that isn't saying much)" -hmm

and much more ... i may not know too much but my opinion is this amazing card should have recieved a much better review.

let me give you an example of a nvidia review article title ... i wont say wich one it was

"NVIDIA GeForce xxxxx : The Only Card That Matters"
and an article introduction
"It's really not often that we have the pleasure to review a product so impressively positioned. The xxxx is a terrific part, and it is hitting the street at a terrific price.Whatever the reason for the xxxxx, we are glad of its existence. This truly is the part to beat in terms of value. "

i`ve never seen something even close about amd products and they had great products so to me your articles seem a little biased but we already got used to it . maby im imagining things

In this article, the reviewer pans the Nvidia 9500GT and 9600GSO even more severely than the AMD 4670. Also his reviews of the AMD 4850 and 4870 were extremely positive. So I don't think it's fair to say he's biased against AMD or in favour of Nvidia. However, he obviously has a hate on for all current < $100 cards... Nvidia's 9500GT is particularly galling - it's just a re-rehashed 7600GT! And the 9600GSO seems pointless, I just checked prices at a local online store and found EVGA 9600GSO cards costing more than their 9600GT cards.

But I think the review is too harsh on the AMD 4670, which resoundingly beat everything else in it's price range, and it is a big step in the right direction. These cards don't do what I want (1920x1200 at high details settings), but that doesn't mean they're junk, just that I'm outside the target market. While they offer little value to me, they should appeals to others with different needs/wants. Reply

I remember the days of the Radeon, when the likes of TomsHardware was still drooling over Geforce2, and Anand chose to painfully explain the issue of image quality - which other reporters were too lazy to attempt. Same goes for the difficult and technicalities detailing the superiority of the Athlon XP over the Pentium 4; Anand took the rough route when other sites found it easier to say "Pentium is awesome, dude".

You should consider the 'bias' in some articles is in fact "enthousiasm" about the new product/technology - which makes for a more fun-to-read article than blog-like constant bickering. Reply

this is a GREAT card for oem comps. its small and the user can stick with the stock power supply and get a massive increase in fps over integrated graphics. plus these cards will probably be just $50 in a few weeks. Reply

well the 4670 is only $80 MSRP and will likely be much cheaper in a few days and also likely have rebates or sales. plus the 4670 fits the needs of most oem comp users. its tiny, runs cool, and doesnt need external power. Reply

On top of that, the 4650/4670 appears to be the perfect choice for SFF and HTPC builders. The low power requirements and lack of PCIe power connector make it perfect for sub-400 watt power supplies. Other reviews around the web have mentioned that the fan on the reference card is very quiet. I wouldn't be surprised to see a fanless "silent" option for the 4650 soon.

I'll probably put one of these in my Shuttle xpc, as it seems more than capable of 720p gaming. Reply

I'm with Derrick here, and would rather have an NV 9600GT. That is actually what I own now(an eVGA double slot 9600GT with rear exhaust). It uses about 18W more idle, 20-25W more while gaming, and it is roughly twice as fast as my old 7600GT. Above measured with a kill a watt power monitoring device at the wall.

I guess that the better experiences I have had with NV parts,and the fact that I have owned mostly NV parts in my personal systems(since at least the late 90's) has made me at least slightly partial. I must admit that this card does look tempting, and if I had not just bought a 9600GT, I would give it some consideration. One thing for sure though, what ever I bought from this side of the camp *would* have to be made by Sapphire . . . Reply

There is also another factor to consider. HD4670 does not require any external 6/8pin PCIE power connectors, which makes it more ideal for people with older or OEM power supplies. Otherwise I agree with you on this that 9600GT is still a very viable and competitive alternative. Reply

The main issue I have,.. you used a price for the 3870 that is about 1 year old now,.. $199 which a casual reader would then infer that the 3870 is a worse price/performance pick,... if you are going to use september 2008 prices for the other cards,.. use September 2008 prices for the 3870 so you can paint the picture on a more level playing field. That adds to the reader's ability to see what price/performance to choose from.

Otherwise, my feelings are, at least we have some benchmarks for this card. I am a bit disappointed since it is so pared down from the 4850/4870 in areas, which makes it unable to really compete in some ways with prior generation for similar price. Reply

As for the HD 4670, keep in mind that this WILL make its way into MAINSTREAM computers (i.e. Dells and HPs), which is a very good thing. The 9600 GSO and 9600 GT probably won't find a home in these PCs because, let's face it, those cards at the $100 price-point aren't high margin and Nvidia and their partners aren't going to be able to offer the kind of substantial discount to OEMs like they can on items like the HD 4670 and 9500 GT.

Also, given the low power consumption, I could see this making its way into laptops soon as well in the $700-$1000 price range.

This will be good not only for your uneducated mainstream computer buyer, but it will also be good for AMD, which really needs it right now, and the PC gaming industry, which also really needs increased demand right now, too. Reply

Well, we certainly look forward to your review of this card in the very near future, then. Or at the very least, some constructive criticism. If you cannot provide either of those, how about you just STFU?

Also, I would not be surprised to see this card in an iMac refresh, courtesy of its low-power/decent performance. Certainly it would be an improvement over the 2400/2600 GPUs they have now, at least for the baseline models. Reply

Besides that, I have an interest in your expert assessment of your own experience licking feces off of male genitalia, since I'm sure it would be riveting compared to your new rival's most likely empty repertoire of anecdotes.

Back on-topic, I found this review to be great, and I also find that spelling is about as relevant to the quality of a person's writing of a review as an incoherent username is to the inherent coolness of the user on a reply thread. Reply

I recent upgraded to the agp version of the 4670 my pc is pretty average, i have a 2.8 amd athlon 1.5 GB of ram and im currently running ARMA2 on high graphics with my resolution at 1024 x 768 and the game runs perfectly smooth with absolute fantastic graphics, i HIGHLY reccomend this budget card :DReply